Ex Parte Vadakkumpadan et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2019

13694120 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/694, 120 10/30/2012
101887 7590 04/04/2019
The Johns Hopkins University
C/0 Venable LLP
P. 0. Box 34385
Washington, DC 20043-9998
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fijoy Vadakkumpadan
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
02240-339872 5093
EXAMINER
BORIN, MICHAEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
hjdaley@venable.com
PTOMAIL@VENABLE.COM
khauser@VENABLE.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FIJOY V ADAKKUMP ADAN, HERMENEGILD AREY ALO,
NATALIA TRAYANOVA, andKATHERINEWU
(APPLICANT: THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY)
Appeal 2018-002939
Application 13/694, 120 1
Technology Center 1600
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JOHN G. NEW, and DAVID COTT A,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
ThisAppeaF under35 U.S.C. § 134(a)involves claims 1--4, 6, 8, 10-
13, 15, 17, 19-22,24,26,and28-39(Fina1Act. 3 2). Examinerentered
rejectionsunder35U.S.C. § 101 and35U.S.C. § 103(a). Wehave
jurisdiction under35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify "The Johns Hopkins University" as the real party in
interest (Appellants' August 2, 2017 Appeal Brief (Br.) 3 ).
2 This Appeal is related to Appeal 2018-003128 (Application 13/984,741).
3 Examiner's October 26, 2016 Final Office Action.
Appeal 2018-002939
Application 13/694, 120
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosure "relates to systems and methods for
personalized cardiac arrhythmia risk assessment, and more particularly
personalized cardiac arrhythmia risk assessment by simulating arrhythmia
inducibility" (Spec. 4 ,r 2). Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method of determining a
likelihood of an occurrence of a cardiac arrhythmia in a living
patient, comprising:
receiving contrast-enhanced three-dimensional MRI or
CT data that includes said living patient's heart;
segmenting said contrast-enhanced three-dimensional
MRI or CT data of said living patient's heart to obtain three-
dimensional heart image data;
segmenting said three-dimensional heart image data into
a plurality of different tissue types of said heart based on said
contrast-enhanced three-dimensional MRI or CT data, said
plurality of different tissue types including a normal tissue
region, a scar tissue region and a transition zone region, said
transition zone region including an infarct border zone tissue
region;
constructing a whole-heart model of said living patient's
heart, said constructing said model comprising:
creating a fmite element mesh using the segmented
three-dimensional MRI or CT data to provide a geometrical
representation of said patient's heart, the fmite element mesh
comprising a plurality of volume elements;
determining a fz ber orientation in each of the
volume elements based on calculations executed on a patient-
specific geometry of the patient's heart; and
assigning electrophysiological parameters to each
of the volume elements taking into account the fl ber
4 Appellants' October 30, 2012 Specification.
2
Appeal 2018-002939
Application 13/694, 120
orientations and the type of tissue where the corresponding
volume element is located;
simulating a response of said patient's heart to each of a
plurality of stimulations to a corresponding plurality of
locations within said living patient's heart using said whole-
heart model;
classifying each simulation outcome for each stimulation
as one resulting in a cardiac arrhythmia or not resulting in a
cardiac arrhythmia;
calculating a likelihood index based on results of said
classifying; and
providing at least one of said likelihood index or a
parameter based thereon to a user.
(Supp. Br. 5 7-8 ( emphasis added).)
5 Appellants' September 27, 2017 Response to Notice of Non-Compliant
Appeal Brief.
3
Appeal 2018-002939
Application 13/694, 120
Grounds of rejection before this Panel for review:
I. Claims 1--4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19-22, 24, 26, and 28-39 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Trayanova, 6 Kroll, 7 Lohman, 8 Constantinides, 9 Korn, 10 Nathan, 11 and
Frangi, 12 in combination with Revishvili, 13 Chen, 14 or Linenbank. 15
II. Claims 1--4,6,8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19-22,24,26,and28-39stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
REJECTION]:
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner support
a conclusion of obviousness?
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
We adopt Examiner's fmdings concerning the scope and content of
the prior art (Final Act. 9-12), and provide the following for emphasis:
6 Natalia A Trayanova,PhD,FHA, FHRS, Whole Heart Modeling:
Applications to Cardiac Electrophysiology and Electromechanics, I 08 CIRC
REs. 113-128 (2011) (citation is made to the NIH-Public Access CIRRES.
Author Manuscript 1-30; available in PMC 2012 January 7).
7 Kroll, US 7,421,292 Bl, issued Sept. 2, 2008.
8 Lohman et al., US 2004/0215091 Al, published Oct. 28, 2004.
9 Constantinides, US 2003/0120151 Al, published June 26, 2003.
1° Korn et al., US 2011/0087088 Al, published Apr. 14, 2011.
11 Nathan et al., US 2011/0087110 Al, published Apr. 14, 2011.
12 Alejandro F. Frangi et al., Three-Dimensional Modeling/or Functional
Analysis of Cardiac Images: A Review, 20 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
MEDICAL IMAGING 2-25 (2001 ).
13 Revishvili et al., US 2010/0191131 Al, published July 29, 2010.
14 Chen et al., US 2005/0018885 Al, published Jan. 27, 2005.
15 Linnenbank et al., US 2012/0002840 Al, published Jan. 5, 2012.
4
Appeal 2018-002939
Application 13/694, 120
FF 1. Examiner fmds that Trayanova discloses, inter alia, determining
fiber orientation of a patient's heart (see Final Act. 9 ( citing Trayanova
§§ 2.2 and 3.2); see also Ans. 5 (Examiner fmds that Trayanova is relied
upon to disclose "determining fiber orientation in [a] whole-heart geometric
model of [a] particular patient's heart"); Ans. 5---6 ( citing Trayanova § 2.2)
(Examiner fmds that "Trayanova acknowledges that if [histological or
diffusion tensor (DT) MRI] data [is] not available 'rule-based approaches'
are used to assign fiber orientation"); Ans. 6 (Examiner fmds that
"Trayanova is viewed as teaching determining fiber orientation in each
volume element based on patient-specific geometry")).
FF 2. Examiner fmds that Trayanova discloses Appellants' claimed
invention, but for calculating a cardiac arrhythmia "likelihood index, based
on ... simulated responses of [a] heart model," the use of a cardiac
arrhythmia likelihood index to determine the "likelihood of [an] occurrence
of cardiac arrhythmia in [a] patient," "obtaining three-dimensional imaging
data of [a] patient's heart in vivo[] from contrast-enhanced MRI imaging,"
and "defming volume elements of ... 3D heart models" (Final Act. 9-12;
see also id. at 9 (Trayanova discloses, inter ali a, "constructing a whole-heart
geometric model for simulating at least one of electrophysiological activity
or electromethcnical activity of [a] patient's heart)).
FF 3. Examiner fmds that the use of a "metric ( such as index, likelihood,
etc.) to qualify [a] heart condition measured by various parameters as
arrhythmia is known in the art" (Final Act. 10-11 (citing Kroll 18:29-50 and
19:34--43 and Lohman 9: left column, 11. 20-38)).
FF 4. Examiner fmds that "obtaining three-dimensional imaging data of [a]
patient's heart in vivo, from contrast-enhanced MRI imaging in particular,
5
Appeal 2018-002939
Application 13/694, 120
are known in the art" (Final Act. 11 ( citing Constantinides ,r,r 62, 63, and 66;
Korn ,r,r 7, 24, 26, 39, and 70; and Nathan ,r,r 24, 26, 39, 69, and 70); see
also Ans. 5 ("obtaining three-dimensional imaging data of [a] patient's heart
in vivo are known in the art")).
FF 5. Examiner fmds "with regard to defming volume elements of
the model, it is known that volume mesh elements in 3D heart models
may take the form of any closed polyhedron, and typically contain
tetrahedral-shaped volume elements" (Final Act. 12 ( citing Revishvili
,r,r 75-80; Chen ,r 180; or Linenbank,r,r 5, 8, and 82).
ANALYSIS
Based on the combination of Trayanova, Kroll, Lohman,
Constantinides, Korn, Nathan, and Frangi, in combination with Revishvili,
Chen, or Linenbank, Examiner concludes that, at the time Appellants'
invention was made, a person of ordinary skill in this art would have
realized that the more simulated outcomes in a modeled heart that result in
the classification of a cardiac arrhythmia, the more likely an arrhythmia is to
happen in the heart that is being modeled (Final Act. 10). Thus, Examiner
reasons, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in this art "to use metrics such as index or likelihood to characterize data
obtained from simulated electrophysiological or electromechanical activity
in heart models" (Final Act. 11 ). In addition, Examiner fmds that a person
of ordinary skill in this art would have found it prima facie obvious "to use
data of three-dimensional imaging of a living patient's heart that are
acquired in vivo, as it simplifies and facilitates the imaging data acquisition
and does not require invasive procedures" (id.).
6
Appeal 2018-002939
Application 13/694, 120
Appellants contend that "Examiner's reliance on Trayanova ... is
misplaced because the reference applies to ex vivo hearts and does not
consider the modeling of a living patient's heart" (Ans. 22; see also id. at
23). We are not persuaded. On this record, Examiner fmds that
Constantinides, Korn, and Nathan disclose three-dimensional imaging of a
living patient's heart (see FF 4). Thus, we fmd no error in Examiner's
conclusion that, at the time Appellants' invention was made, a person of
ordinary skill in this art would have found it prima facie obvious "to use data
of three-dimensional imaging of a living patient's heart that are acquired in
vivo, [in Trayanova's method,] as it simplifies and facilitates the imaging
data acquisition and does not require invasive procedures" (Final Act. 11 ).
Appellants contend that "Trayanova ... rather than disclosing
determining the claimed patient-specific fiber orientations, it actually taught
that acquiring patient-specific fiber orientation for a living patient was an
impossibility" (Br. 23; see id. at 24 ( Appellants contend that the prior art
relied upon by Examiner does not "disclose[] determining fiber orientations
as claimed and constructing a patient-specific whole heart model of a living
patient's heart"). We are not persuaded. As Examiner explains, Trayanova
discloses the use of "rule-based approaches' ... to assign fiber orientation"
(FF 1 ). There is no evidence on this record to support a conclusion that
Trayanova' s rule-based approaches are not applicable to a living patient's
heart (cf Br. 22-23).
Because the method of Appellants' claim 1 does not require a
plurality of electrical stimulations, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
contention that "Trayanova ... fails to disclose simulating a response of [a]
patient's heart to a plurality of electrical stimulations using the whole heart
7
Appeal 2018-002939
Application 13/694, 120
model" (see Supp. Br. 7-8; cf id. at 8 (Appellants' claim 4 limits the scope
of the method set forth in Appellants' claim 1 to require that the plurality of
stimulations are electrical stimulations); Br. 23).
Appellants' claim 1 requires, inter ali a, that simulation outcomes are
classified as "one resulting in a cardiac arrhythmia or not resulting in a
cardiac arrhythmia," therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
contention that "Trayanovafails to disclose classifying each simulation
outcome for each stimulation as one of a normal heart rhythm or a cardiac
arrhythmia" (Br. 23 ( emphasis added)). In this regard, we do not fmd and
Appellants' have not identified a disclosure on this record to support a
fmding that a person of ordinary skill in this art would have understood that
all simulation outcomes that do not result in a cardiac arrhythmia are normal
heart rhythms. Nevertheless, as Examiner explains Trayanova discloses the
classification of simulation outcomes as one of a normal heart rhythm or a
cardiac arrhythmia(Final Act. 10 (citing Trayanova §§ 3.2-3.3 and Fig. 3)).
Thus, Appellants' contentions are not persuasive.
Appellants fail to provide an evidentiary basis on this record to
support their contention that "Kroll, Lohman, Constantinides, Korn, Nathan,
Frangi, Revishvili, Chen, and Linenbank do not make up for the deficiencies
of Trayanova" (Br. 23 ). Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
unsupported contention. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974)
("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence."). For
the same reason, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions that at the
time of their claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in this art would
not have understood Trayanova to suggest "a virtual heart methodology
could be constructed so as to determine [a] patient's risk of sudden cardiac
8
Appeal 2018-002939
Application 13/694, 120
death" and "Applicant[ s] in fact believe[] that the consensus in the field at
the time this invention was made was that it was not possible to construct a
realistic personalized heart model to perform realistic simulations of the
functioning of an individual's heart" (Br. 24).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
contention that Examiner's rejection is based in "impermissible hindsight
reasoning" (Br. 24).
CONCLUSION
The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner supports a
conclusion of obviousness. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S. C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Trayanova, Kroll, Lohman,
Constantinides, Korn, Nathan, and Frangi, in combination with Revishvili,
Chen, or Linenbank is affirmed. Claims 2--4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19-22, 24,
26, and 28-39 are not separately argued and fall with claim 1.
REJECTION]]:
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence of record support Examiner's
fmding that Appellants' claimed invention is directed to patent ineligible
subject matter?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 3 5 U.S. C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: '" [l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
9
Appeal 2018-002939
Application 13/694, 120
ideas'" are not patentable. E.g.,AliceCorp. v. CLSBankint'l, 573 U.S.
208,216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at217-18 (citing Mayo CollaborativeServs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). Inaccordancewiththat framework,
we frrst determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593,611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611 );
mathematical formulas (Parkerv. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubberproducts"(Diamondv. Diehr,450U.S. 175,191
(1981)); "tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n. 7 (quoting Corningv. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267---68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Gottschalk, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochranev. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Di ehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that"[ a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
10
Appeal 2018-002939
Application 13/694, 120
mathematical formula." Diehr,450U.S. at 176;see also id. at 191 ("We
view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment." Id. ( citing Gottschalk and Parker); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is
now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical
formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.").
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 ( quotation marks omitted). "A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to
ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [ abstract idea]."' Id. ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
"[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPT0,2019 RevisedPatentSubjectMatter Eligibility Guidance,
11
Appeal 2018-002939
Application 13/694, 120
84 Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019) ("Revised Guidance"). Under that
guidance, we frrst look to whether the claim recites:
( 1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
See 84 Fed. Reg. 54--5 5. Only if a claim ( 1) recites a judicial exception and
(2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then
look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see
MPEP §2106.05(d)); or
( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See 84 Fed. Reg. 51.
ANALYSIS
Applying the Revised Guidance to the facts on this record, we find that
Appellants' claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The Revised
Guidance instructs us first to determine whether any judicial exception to
patent eligibility is recited in the claim. The Revised Guidance identifies three
judicially-excepted groupings identified by the courts as abstract ideas: (1)
mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human behavior such
as fundamental economic practices, and (3) mental processes.
Examiner fmds that Appellants' "process is a computational method
of modeling heart condition of patient's heart to determine a numeric value
of likelihood of occurrence of a cardiac arrhythmia in the patient" (Final
12
Appeal 2018-002939
Application 13/694, 120
Act. 3 ). In this regard, Examiner fmds that Appellants' "method includes
the steps of receiving imaging information, constructing a heart model,
performing mathematical calculations to simulate activity of heart,
classifying the results, and calculating an index value," which Examiner
fmds "are directed to processing information and converting one form of
numerical representation into another by organizing information through
mathematical concepts such as mathematical algorithms, mathematical
relationships, mathematical formulas, and calculations" (id.). We agree with
Examiner that claim 1 recites patent ineligible subject matter. More
specifically, Appellants' claim 1, reproduced above, recites the following
limitations: (1) "segmenting ... [the] data ... to obtain three-dimensional
heart image data," (2) "segmenting [the] three-dimensional heart image data
into ... [ additional] data," and (3) determining a fiber orientation in each of
the volume elements based on calculations executed on a patient-specific
geometry of the patient's heart (Supp. Br. 7-8). These limitations simply
require mathematic calculations, which, without more, is an abstract idea.
Intellectual Ventures I, 850 F.3d at 1340; see also Digitech Image Techs.,
LLC. v. Elecs. For Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
("Without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical
algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional
information is not patent eligible").
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants' claimed invention is
directed to mathematical calculations, which are among the groupings
identified in the revised Guidance, and thus an abstract idea (see Final Act. 4
(Examiner fmds that Appellants' claims are "directed to an abstract idea
which is a judicial exception")).
13
Appeal 2018-002939
Application 13/694, 120
Having determined that Appellants' claim 1 is directed to a judicial
exception, the Revised Guidance directs us to next consider whether the
claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. On this
record, Appellants' claim 1 comprises the steps of: (a) "[a] computer-
implemented method of determining a likelihood of an occurrence of a
cardiac arrhythmia in a living patient," (b) "receiving ... data that includes
[ data regarding a] living patient's heart," and "calculating a likelihood index
based on results of said classifying," (c) "constructinga whole-heartmodel
of [a] living patient's heart ... , " ( d) "simulating a response of said patient's
heart to each of a plurality of stimulations to a corresponding plurality of
locations within said living patient's heart using said whole-heart model,"
( e) "classifying each simulation outcome for each stimulation as one
resulting in a cardiac arrhythmia or not resulting in a cardiac arrhythmia,"
and ( f) "providing at least one of said likelihood index or parameter based
thereon to a user" (Supp. Br. 7-8). We fmd, however, that analyzing
information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical
algorithms, and outputting the results of such an analysis or calculation to a
user, i.e. by a display, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea because they are insignificant post-solution activities. See Elec. Power
Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54. Similarly, the receiving, or data collection, step
of Appellants' claim, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea because it is an insignificant pre-solution activity. See Mayo 566 U.S.
at 79 ( quoting Flook, 437 U.S. at 590) ("Purely 'conventional or obvious'
'[pre ]-solution activity' is non11a1ly not sufficient to transform an
unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law").
In addition, the use of a generic computer to perform generic computer
14
Appeal 2018-002939
Application 13/694, 120
functions that are "well-understood, routine, conventional activities"
previously known in the industry is not enough to transform the abstract idea
into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26. In sum,
Appellants' claimed method directs a person of ordinary skill in this art to
create and manipulate data as part of a model of a living patient's heart in
order to simulate the induction of an arrhythmia in the model to determine a
patient-specific ablation target that eliminates the arrhythmia with a minimal
ablation lesion size as distinguished from a technical improvement for
achieving or applying that result, i.e., the elimination of an arrhythmia with a
minimal ablation lesion size in a living patient's heart. Cf Diehr, 450 U.S.
at 179 n.5 (the claims in Diehrrecited a method for operating a rubber-
molding press including the step of "opening the press automatically when a
said comparison [ of calculated cure time vs. elapsed time] indicates
equivalence." Thus, the recited mathematical equation had the practical
application of automatically operating a press). Therefore, on this record,
we conclude that the ineligible subject matter in Appellants' claim 1 is not
integrated into a practical application.
Having determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a
practical application, the Revised Guidance requires us to evaluate the
additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether
they provide an inventive concept, such as a specific limitation beyond the
judicial exception that is not well-understood, routine, conventional in the
field, or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. 51. In this regard, we note that
Appellants' method comprises the steps of: (i) "constructing a whole-heart
15
Appeal 2018-002939
Application 13/694, 120
modelof[a] living patient's heart"and(ii) "simulating a response of said
patient's heart to each of a plurality of stimulations to a corresponding
plurality of locations within said living patient's heart using said whole-heart
model" (Supp. Br. 7-8). We recognize that the model construction step of
Appellants' claimed invention comprising the additional steps of
creating a fmite element mesh using the segmented three-
dimensional MRI or CT data to provide a geometrical
representation of said patient's heart, the fmite element mesh
comprising a plurality of volume elements;
determining a fiber orientation in each of the volume
elements based on calculations executed on a patient-specific
geometry of the patient's heart; and
assigning electrophysiological parameters to each of the
volume elements taking into account the fiber orientations and
the type of tissue where the corresponding volume element is
located.
(Supp. Br. 7-8.) As discussed above, with respectto the obviousness
rejection, however, these method steps were known, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry (see e.g., FF 1-5; Final Act. 8-
12; Ans. 4--5; cf Br. 18-20). Therefore, we conclude that Appellants' claim
1 does not include an inventive concept.
Although Appellants contends that their "invention provides a tool to
determine a likelihood that a particular person will suffer SCD[ 16l" and that
"[ t ]here currently is no such tool available to provide such important
personalized life or death information," their claimed invention is not
commensurate in scope with their contentions (see Br. 14; cf Br. 7-8).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
16 Appellants defme the acronym "SCD" as "sudden cardiac death" (Br. 14).
16
Appeal 2018-002939
Application 13/694, 120
The preponderance of evidence of record supports Examiner's fmding
that Appellants' claimed invention is directed to patent ineligible subject
matter. Therejectionofclaim 1 under35U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed. Claims
2--4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19-22, 24, 26, and 28-39 are not separately argued
and fall with claim 1.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
17